Argentina’s Leading Case on AI

Argentina: The Acevedo Case — A Leading Case in the Relationship Between Procedural Law and Artificial Intelligence

I. INTRODUCTION

What could have been yet another case of an appeal being declared abandoned turned into a ruling of great institutional significance, by bringing to light a problem that directly challenges legal practice: the emergence of "phantom rulings” in court filings, originating from the uncritical use of generative artificial intelligence tools. It is a leading case in that it opens the discussion on the limits and responsibilities involved in the use of disruptive technologies in the practice of law.

II. THE CASE: "ACEVEDO GERARDO GABRIEL V. CÁCERES MARECO WILLIAN ARSENIO AND AGROSALTA COOPERATIVA DE SEGUROS LIMITADA – DAMAGES (AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT – INJURIES OR DEATH)”

The Court of Appeals decided to declare the plaintiff’s appeal abandoned, ordering costs against the appellant, due to the evident technical insufficiency of its arguments. The appellant’s submissions, based on partial and untraceable citations of case law, failed to constitute a "reasoned” critique of the first-instance ruling, as required by Article 260 of the Civil and Commercial Procedural Code (CPCC).

Among the key passages, the court noted:

"Among the cases cited, the appellant mentions a decision of this same tribunal —‘Barrios, Rubén Darío v. Acuña, Gustavo Gabriel, Damages’— identified as case No. 61.169. The appeal’s reasoning is built almost entirely upon that case. However, after attempting to locate it, I was unable to find either the ruling itself or the case file (I searched by case name and number alike).”

Similarly, the judgment states:

"The same occurs in the other section of the appeal (regarding loss of use), where the appellant once again refers to this ‘Barrios’ ruling and cites two additional cases. One (‘Ortiz’), supposedly from this Chamber (which we also cannot locate), and another (‘Rodríguez’), which the appellant attributes to the Supreme Court of the Province, equally impossible to locate (despite my attempts through JUBA —the official jurisprudence database of the Supreme Court of Buenos Aires Province— and through the MEV system to find the case).”

Beyond the difficulty in verifying these precedents, the court underscored that the appeal lacked the critical analysis required to justify a review of the lower court’s decision. The Chamber stressed that it is not enough to list rulings, citations, or doctrinal references: for an appeal to be admissible, it must contain coherent and articulated legal reasoning that demonstrates why the challenged decision should be overturned.

III. THE ROLE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

The ruling directly linked this issue to the use of generative artificial intelligence tools. While these technologies can produce texts of remarkable quality, they are subject to the phenomenon of hallucinations—responses that include fabricated information presented with an appearance of authenticity.

In the legal field, this risk translates into the potential inclusion of fictitious rulings, statutes, or doctrines. The U.S. case Mata v. Avianca had already exposed the consequences of such conduct in comparative law. Now, with Acevedo, the issue has been formally acknowledged within Argentine jurisdiction, establishing the need to address it through professional responsibility.

In this regard, the court stated:

"In these times, as is well known, following the renowned U.S. ruling in Mata v. Avianca (on which the web is full of material, but as an introduction, one can consult the work by Milagros TALLARICO, available at the following link: https://aldiaargentina.microjuris.com/2024/08/19/doctrina-consecuencias-juridicas-de-las-alucinaciones-n-herramientas-de-inteligencia-artificial-generativa-analisis-del-caso-roberto-mata-vs-avianca-airlines/) the issue of citing non-existent precedents due to the (inadequate) use of generative artificial intelligence systems by legal professionals has reached the courts. This phenomenon, referred to as ‘hallucinations,’ essentially describes situations in which generative AI systems provide responses containing information that does not correspond to reality.”

The Court of Appeals for Civil and Commercial Matters of Morón made it clear: the use of artificial intelligence tools is not prohibited. What is required is that the attorney bears responsibility for verifying and controlling the information before submitting it in a judicial filing. Technology may assist —but never replace— the lawyer’s critical and reflective work.

IV. CONCLUSION: REFLECTIONS ON ITS USE

This ruling marks an intersection between procedural law and artificial intelligence. It represents a turning point in legal practice by exposing the risks of "phantom rulings” and reminding practitioners that the future of law demands integrating new technologies with technical rigor and professional oversight.

The message is unequivocal: generative artificial intelligence tools can become strategic allies for lawyers, but never their substitutes. Every court filing bears the signature of a professional who is accountable for its contents, and that responsibility is non-transferable.

Technology can accelerate, assist, and enhance the work —but professional ethics, critical analysis, and rigorous verification will remain irreplaceable pillars. Ultimately, the credibility of attorneys and public trust in the justice system depend on this balance.

In this same spirit, the Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals of Morón not only declared the appeal abandoned —with costs against the appellant— but also adopted an exemplary measure: it ordered that the matter be reported to the local Bar Association, recommending that practitioners be reminded of the importance of verifying the actual existence of laws, rulings, and doctrine when using artificial intelligence tools in judicial drafting.

Thus, the decision not only resolves a specific case but also projects a preventive and educational message to the entire legal community.

Source:

«Acevedo Gerardo Gabriel c/ Cáceres Mareco Willian Arsenio y Agrosalta Cooperativa de Seguros Limitada s/ daños y perjuicios autom. c/ lesiones o muerte» – Cámara de Apelación en lo Civil y Comercial de Morón (Sala I) – MO-19435-2020. https://www.scba.gov.ar/includes/descarga.asp?id=57443&n=Ver%20sentencia%20(causa%2019.435).pdf

(*) Milagros D. Tallarico. Lawyer graduated from the National University of Lomas de Zamora (UNLZ), specializing in Artificial Intelligence and Law: Legal Analytics from Torcuato Di Tella University (UTDT). She currently serves as a Semi Senior Associate at Alfaro Abogados. Previously, she interned at the Civil and Commercial Court No. 9 of the Judicial Department of Lomas de Zamora, as well as at the Criminal Defense Units No. 3 and No. 11 of the Public Ministry of the Province of Buenos Aires.